Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 21:05:39 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAdDpDaCJeEQqrZObLq38jfgrnehpiwYem_SxXKLi6cREE8_TQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dylan Barrell <dylan.barrell@deque.com>, Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Too late Wilco it was already voted down at the meeting ... Thanks for donating part of your vacation towards it...smile... On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 2:28 PM Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com> wrote: > Hi David, > > I appreciate the effort to come up with a middle ground solution in order > to keep numbering and levels ordered, but I think you're overlooking the > impact this will actually have. > > The SC numbers are the primary way of identifying success criteria. If we > change numbers between 2.0 and 2.1, it will mean we'll now have identifiers > that mean one thing in the context of 2.0, and another in 2.1. So now if I > want to know for sure what SC you are talking about, I also need to know > the WCAG version. What for 2.0 was a reliable identifier now no longer is. > > This means that every piece of software that uses WCAG SC numbers as > identifiers will NOT be able to support WCAG 2.1 without changes. All of > them will have to switch over to using both WCAG version and SC numbers as > identifiers. I don't know how many accessibility tools do this today, but I > expect it will be most. Ours certainly do. Changing such a fundamental > thing as what is used as an identifier isn't a small change either, no > matter how you built your software. > > The argument of "its just AAA, people don't use it much" doesn't hold > either. AAA criteria are used selectively by most accessibility testers, > and so most software/databases has at least a few of them. > > Essentially, this proposal would make adopting WCAG 2.1 more costly than > it needs to be. It also breaks the promise that was made that WCAG 2.0 > criteria would be unchanged in 2.1. > > So I'm sorry David, but I don't even a compromise limited to AAA would > prevent problems. SC identifiers are unique or they aren't. "only the AAA > ones" is just as problematic as changing every one of them, at least as far > as software is concerned. Even WCAG requires for identifiers to be unique > (SC 4.1.1), that's probably a good hint that this isn't a good idea. > > Wilco > > P.s. Stop distracting me from my vacation ;) > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:57 PM, David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com> > wrote: > >> The current problem is that new Level SCs come in after AAA in >> thenstandard unless we jugle the order or deemphise number, neither of >> which is ideal. >> >> Here's a proposal that might work as a compromise. >> >> Level AAA SCs are less entrenched in the WCAG culture. What if we agree >> that those numbers can change. >> >> - Change 11 Level AAA SC numbers >> - Insert the new SCs in their proper place >> - move accidental activation to Pointer Guideling as per Steve's >> suggestion Issue #376 >> - Make new Speech guideline 2.7 >> >> This would allow the numbers to make sense with the levels also in order, >> so no Level A or AA would follow AAA, and would keep ALL Level A and AA SC >> numbers in tact. >> >> Cheers, >> David MacDonald >> >> >> >> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* >> Mobile: 613.806.9005 <(613)%20806-9005> >> >> LinkedIn >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> >> >> twitter.com/davidmacd >> >> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> >> >> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> >> >> >> >> * Adapting the web to all users* >> * Including those with disabilities* >> >> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy >> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html> >> > > > > -- > *Wilco Fiers* > Senior Accessibility Engineer - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair Auto-WCAG > -- Cheers, David MacDonald *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* Mobile: 613.806.9005 LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> twitter.com/davidmacd GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> * Adapting the web to all users* * Including those with disabilities* If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
(image/gif attachment: deque_logo_180p.gif)